About Me

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Spinning cores.

Finally earth scientists have announced that the earth's core is spinning at a different rate (faster) than the rest of the earth. That's a "duh." With an intense electromagnetic field that changes polarity and intensity with time, it simply had to have an "engine" and that engine has to be the (partially) liquid, iron core. Intuitively, we know that the magnetic field would be very stable if the core simply rotated at the same rate as the rest of the earth. Another intuitive awareness is that if the core is "liquid" (and we may have to redefine "liquid" for this intense heat and pressure zone), if the core is liquid, it is not "affixed" to the rest of the earth and might spin at the rate the earth once was spinning, or some measure of that spin. In earth science geo-speak, there once was a "big drop" of a lot of the iron in the molten ball now called "earth" and that group of heavy, molten metal (mostly iron), "fell" to the center and has remained molten. Since the geo-speak scientists generally agree the earth was once spinning faster than now, it stands to reason that the engine at the core is spinning faster than the outer shell. As I said, "duh."

It reminds me of the story of moon exploration. In the Kennedy years of "we're number two, Oh My Gawd" the dedicated race to beat the Russians at "something" produced a lot of moon debate. One of the big questions was whether the astronauts would be safe from moonquakes and some sort of moonquake might not knock over the lunar lander, preventing the people from a safe return. A large number of earth and astro scientists were gathered for a conference on this point at great expense to NASA. As learned papers were being delivered and much though given to moonquakes and possible fault zones on the moon, a not well known earth scientist from the back asked a simple question that was also an observation: "If there were fault lines on the moon creating moonquakes, wouldn't we see displacement of the pretty circles caused by meteor impact?" The learned group of scientists went silent for a moment and then began to laugh at the obvious that had been totally overlooked. Afterall, the moon would act similarily to the earth and an earthquake zone is accompanied by a fault line that displaces the surface, in some cases by many hundreds of miles. Any moonquake would also have such a surface feature and we would readily notice any displacement of those circles caused by meteor impact on the moon. It was one of those "duh" moments. Question answered, conference dissolved.

The next big scientific discovery about the earth core spin will be that the spin axis is not the same as the outer earth spin axis. That's another one of those "duh" moments. Of course we already know that. The magnetic pole is not at the spin pole. Gee, guess what that means. It means the object creating the magnetic field (the molten core) has a slightly different axis than the rest of the earth. Also, the fact of the reasonably regular flip flop of polarity would indicate a precession of spin/axis that slowly (in human terms) moves the polarity from north to south and back again.

Another "discovery" will be that the molten core represents a "fossil" energy. The spin is what the earth once was spinning at but our old earth has changed it's rate with time. So has the core, but the core responds slower to rotation changes. That gives us some evidence that the earth was once spinning faster than it is now and had a different spin axis orientation. Interesting. Using the data on core spin and axis, we can backtrack to see conditions relating to earth spin and axis in the past. I wonder how conditions on earth might have been with the faster spin and different axis. This fossil energy might even help us understand ancient events that helped form the earth and moon, even the solar system.

There are so many "scientific discoveries" that we already intuitively know. Many more than these few examples. Think. Don't believe only scientists know these things, you already know more than you pay attention to or realize.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Chairman Mao knew.

Musing a bit over Iraq and other areas of conflict. Sadly most of these are Islam vrs. anyone and the conflicted areas grow apace.

A newscast from Iraq displayed an older woman dressed in severe black (hmmm, isn't it HOT there?) who said the government, actually the government that hasn't quite begun yet, she said that the government wasn't protecting people and so she didn't see any reason to support the new government. Chairman Mao said that this is exactly what the people would believe when a few dedicated people kept "pinpricking" the population and showing that the government could not stop atrocities from the "opposition."

Chairman Mao clearly understood the technique of oppressing a large population with a small group of highly dedicated people. Not just killers. He used teachers, brought food, supplied medical care, aided the very population that had been damaged and deprived by his group with the "other hand" and by this method took over the country with the largest population in the world and kept it under control using harsh and violent methods, applied rapidly and expansively. Hamas has learned this method and applied it with great success.

The technique worked in Viet Nam. The small group of "Charlie" working to unite with North Viet Nam and institute communist-style government were able to "pinprick" the population and force them to support communist unification or suffer and even die. Since the government couldn't (and none can) put a soldier with each family (and even that wouldn't have worked), the population was, and always will be, at risk and readily available to a fringe of dedicated opposition willing to pay the ultimate price to discredit the current government.

Where does that leave the Iraq situation? In a never-ending fight that cannot be won by any conventional means or by any means so far attempted by a government under such "Chairman Mao-style" pressure.

It is not possible to "win the hearts and minds" of the opposition (in this case, radical Islamists). It was not possible to win over and change the idealism of Chairman Mao's dedicated "freedom" fighters. It is not possible to "bring them in" to take part in the existing government any more than it would have been possible to bring the dedicated fighters of "Charley" in Viet Nam into the existing, U.S. supported government of the time. It's just mixing fire and gasoline and expecting no explosion; won't work. It's not possible to incorporate the dedicated, radical, "I'll die first," fighters for radical Islam into any government that has any hint of democracy in it. It's not possible for the population of Iraq to support any democratic government so long as the radical Islamists are able to "pinprick" the population. It's not possible to stop the ability of the radical Islamists to continue to "pinprick" the population.

Basic services to the population of Iraq cannot be made secure or, in some cases, even made available. The actions of the radical Islamists easily break the electrical, water, and communications network at will. This can happen in any country. Our electrical network is readily available and visible. How simple to disrupt such a system. Ours is disrupted several times each year from ordinary thunderstorms or the occasional hurricane. Farther north, the winter storms disrupt the electrical service all too commonly. Imagine what a few dedicated "freedom" fighters could do. In Iraq, it is even easier to get such a job done and the population quickly has learned that no one can keep their needed electric, water, communication, transportation, and so on services going. Only getting the radical Islamists to stop will work.

Under what condidtions will the radical Islamists stop the attacks on the population? The same condidtions outlined by Chairman Mao; total victory. In order for the population to get the attacks to stop, they must support the radical Islamists as the new government. After some time of these attacks and attacks and attacks, supporting the radical Islamists and their restrictive style of Islamic governance will seem the lesser of two evils.

Under what condidtion can the present government and the U.S. gain a level of security against the radical Islamic guerrilla dedicated fighters? Probably cannot be done. It would require some equally radical and dedicated method staffed by equally dedicated, ready to die for the cause, people. Possibly a new "invasion" by about a half a million dedicated "peace" fighters carrying food, water, tools, and the willing spirit to work WITH every Iraqi family and swarm over all the service connections to fix the electric, sanitation, and so on. These peace fighters would need to be ready to die and they would, in great numbers. The world would need to be ready to sacrifice another half million of our burgeoning population for peace and send unarmed and unprotected, dedicated people to their doom over and over until the radical Islamists simply wear down or get old and a bit more mellow. Other than that method, I suppose the radical Islamists could be reduced greatly in numbers by using Chairman Mao's methods of absolute brutality and not worrying about "collateral damage." All of the "inbetween" methods will probably fail. By "inbetween" I mean any method other than total brutal force and total brutal peace. Every other method seems doomed before begun.

Well, it's difficult to sort out the ups and downs of such highly charged political, social, religious, and so on, situations. Only by invoking some historical vision, some realistic appreciation, and looking without rose-colored glasses can we begin to see the truth. How far back in history to you want to go to see truth? How many Mongols did it take to conquer most of Asia and much of Europe? How large was the population these few dedicated Mongols controlled? How many Vandals invaded and conquered Rome? How large was the population of Rome at the time? Keep looking and come to your own conclusions, I did.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Red Light - - Red Light

From personal observation, 100 percent of the people who run red lights get away with it. With many years of driving experience in every condition from metro to off-road, I've observed many, many red light runners. Never have I seen one red light runner cause a law enforcement vehicle alarm or even the slightest activity. Not often, but sometimes even when such law enforcement vehicle was at the light that was violated.

There must be a set of conditions required for someone to get a ticket for running a red light that I'm not aware of and it would be nice to know what they are so I, too, can run red lights with impunity. I have this suspicion, however, that as soon as I begin to run or even squeeze the red lights I'll get to see someone stopped and given a ticket for the first time.

Red light squeezing and outright running seems to be increasing in frequency lately. Especially those in the left turn lane who push the red arrow to the point that green light traffic actually has to wait for the crossing traffic to stop running the red arrow. I suppose a red arrow doesn't have the same power to hold people back as does a full round disk. I've watched people honk, push their cars forward in a threatening manner, yell out the windows, gesture in an obvious angry way, all to try to get the right of way and stop the left turn red light runners. To no avail except in the case of a woman who must have felt threatened enough to stop half way through the red light running process, completely blocking the right of way, green light traffic until someone began to get out of their car (probably to help push her car to the side, thinking it was stalled) when she took off like a shot and disappeared down the road.

I am aware that even law enforcement personell are also aware of this as a problem, a growing problem. Efforts to educate the public, to label this as "aggressive driving" (at least), to put up cameras and send tickets to the license plate owners, and more efforts have and are being made even as I write. It probably is just me. I don't attract law enforcement but do attract law breakers. The cops should follow me around. Traffic laws are broken in plain sight all about me. Yup, it must be me. I bet it doesn't happen to anyone else.????